nail in the coffin for climate changers?

[Hacp]

Here's a hint: What the study says is not what Forbes says it says. There's nothing to deride you ignoramus.

This is exactly what the paper says. It is trying to say in polite terms that the coefficients used to model feedback in the current models are too high compared to real world data and they need to lower them the fuck down.

 

[Rainsford]

News flash - the study is published in Remote Sensing, a peer-reviewed scientific and engineering journal about the science and engineering of remote sensors. It merely confirms using raw satellite data what has been known for at least two decades - that current computer models do not match measured reality.

Doesn't this feel an awful lot like confirmation bias to you? Out of the many, many peer-reviewed studies on the topic of global warming, some people find this particular study to be both credible/accurate and conclusive. And it just so happens that it confirms what they already thought about global warming. That seems a bit convenient...

 

[Rainsford]

This is exactly what the paper says. It is trying to say in polite terms that the coefficients used to model feedback in the current models are too high compared to real world data and they need to lower them the fuck down.

Science isn't "polite", it's science. If there appears to be a discrepancy between what a scientific paper is saying and how it's presented by biased laymen, chances are good that the laymen are overselling the scientific conclusion and NOT that the scientists are just trying to be nice.

In other words, there is a difference between "current models don't accurately model real world data" and "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism".

 

[Perknose]

Does your post mean most actual scientists in relevant fields think this is good news, bad news, or bullshit?

Of your three choices, bullshit.

They think, to a person, that the author's methodology is so seriously flawed that the data he presents doesn't come even close to supporting the conclusions he says it does.

 

[Lemon law]

I think Rainsford seriously misses the point, by saying, " In other words, there is a difference between "current models don't accurately model real world data" and "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism".

There is absolutely no scientific doubt at all that current climate prediction models fail to accurately predict where global warming effects should be occurring. All that tells us is that our current scientific understanding about how all global Warming factors interact, is woefully inadequate.

But at the same time, the overall scientific consensus daily becomes more clear that Global warming is undeniable occurring at accelerating rates.

What is missing in action is an iota of proof that the Rainsford contention that ""New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism". Especially when we factor in the fact that sunspots have been at a historic low, and still, global warming continues and does not reverse.

 

[Hacp]

I think Rainsford seriously misses the point, by saying, " In other words, there is a difference between "current models don't accurately model real world data" and "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism".

There is absolutely no scientific doubt at all that current climate prediction models fail to accurately predict where global warming effects should be occurring. All that tells us is that our current scientific understanding about how all global Warming factors interact, is woefully inadequate.

But at the same time, the overall scientific consensus daily becomes more clear that Global warming is undeniable occurring at accelerating rates.

What is missing in action is an iota of proof that the Rainsford contention that ""New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism". Especially when we factor in the fact that sunspots have been at a historic low, and still, global warming continues and does not reverse.

The only "proof" they have of accelerating rates is the models. That is all. Climaters do not have real world data to support their claims of man made climate change.

 

[sandorski]

The only "proof" they have of accelerating rates is the models. That is all. Climaters do not have real world data to support their claims of man made climate change.

Negative.

 

[Hacp]

Negative.

Where is this real world data?Where are the experiments? There are no experiments! Climate changers are like economists. They can't run experiments to prove their theories.

 

[Jaskalas]

But at the same time, the overall scientific consensus daily becomes more clear that Global warming is undeniable occurring at accelerating rates.

😵 D: :awe: 😀 🙄 :wub: :whiste:

Why Hasn’t The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?

Warming is on vacation, and it has been so bad that the warmists had to create a Chinese pollution story to buy themselves more time in hopes that the planet might once again cooperate with their fairy tale.

Lead NASA activist James Hansen had published a chart at the beginning of the MMGW scare warning us of the temperature increases. You know what it says? We're tracking just below scenario C, 'greatly reduced emissions'. Given our record emissions, I hope you can appreciate the ramifications of their failure.

You say accelerating because the cultists tell you that. Because your faith demands it. Reality is a harsh mistress and the data says you're full of shit.

Hansen's numbers are blown out of the water by the test of time. It's 'accelerating' so quickly that your own people have to provide cover stories for why it does not exist at all!

Your end is here.

 

[shira]

What we have here is yet another example of cherry-picking research papers.

In the course of a typical year, when 50 or 100 papers are published that support the consensus on MMCC, how many of those papers do you think are going to be trumpeted by James M. Taylor, the Heartland Institute, or the rest of the climate-change denial crowd? That's right, exactly zero. And unlike baseless assertions that the science underlying MMCC amounts to a "conspiracy" to grossly exaggerate the threat of climate change, there's plenty of evidence that there's a concerted effort to mislead the public as to the validity of the conclusions of climatology. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Private_sector

The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'."

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

Peer-reviewed papers ought to be granted their proportional role in our evolving understanding of climate change. But climate-change deniers aren't really interested in science. For them, science is useful only if it can be used as propaganda to further their self-interested objectives. Deniers are driven by their ideology and their pre-ordained conclusions, not by the objective pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Lemon law]

Its hard to understand why Jaskalas by his own graph, can't see that global temps are rising.

All over the world we are seeing events that are unprecedented in in the past 20, 000 years if not more. We have a Northwest passage opening in the past 10 years for the first time in recorded human history, we have methane evaporating from permafrosts at record rates, the highest CO2 levels in 200,000 years, and you tell us its all in our imagination?????????????????

And at the same time, among serious scientists, global warming deniers are becoming an ever smaller minority.

But still that misses the point, we are playing Russian roulette with our climate, Because as our still woefully inadequate understanding increases, we don't know when we will trigger an unpredictable and irreversible tipping point in Ocean currents. And yes it even possible that Global warming could cause a new Ice age by causing something like the gulf stream to becomes gostoppen.

 

[Phokus]

I'm starting to care less and less about global warming. If things like Hurricanes and Flooding is hitting the Southeast red states mostly (edit: not to mention the wildfires in Texas now), then fuck them. Let them hang themselves with their anti-global warming rope. This world is doomed anyway, let them suffer the consequences first.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

god damn it, these climate change denying fuckers are one step away from being evolution deniers.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Where is this real world data?Where are the experiments? There are no experiments! Climate changers are like economists. They can't run experiments to prove their theories.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

Welcome to the internet, enjoy your stay!

 

[DominionSeraph]

god damn it, these climate change denying fuckers are one step away from being evolution deniers.

Uhhh... they're the same people.

 

[OCGuy]

The best part of this forum is that nobody ever refutes the date that is published, they just go on intellectually-void attacked on the OP and the source.

 

[shira]

The best part of this forum is that nobody ever refutes the date that is published, they just go on intellectually-void attacked on the OP and the source.

None of us here can directly refute the conclusions presented - we're not climatologists. And there's no "data" presented that we could possibly refute, even if we were in a position to do so. All we know are the high-level conclusions of the study's author.

But it seems to me that you're trying pretty hard to ignore several posts here that have been to the point in calling into question both the Forbes article (it's undeniably slanted and clearly mischaracterizes the study it cites) and the study's conclusion.

 

[NeoV]

so let me get this straight - it's warming - but since it wasn't accurately predicted, it's all a bunch of BS?

Got it...

 

[OCGuy]

I'm starting to care less and less about global warming. If things like Hurricanes and Flooding is hitting the Southeast red states mostly (edit: not to mention the wildfires in Texas now), then fuck them. Let them hang themselves with their anti-global warming rope. This world is doomed anyway, let them suffer the consequences first.

I'm assuming you burn absolutely no fossil-fuels. Or purchase goods that were shipped via truck or train.

The mail you receive is delivered by the pony express. You don't use any sort of plastic either. When you travel, I am almost certain you are on a bicycle.

We are all reliant on fossil fuel. I am 100% on board with finding an alternative fuel to get us off of the OPEC teat.

However, it makes me laugh when a liberal acts like somehow Republicans are causing "climate change."

I disagree with 95% of your posts, but they are usually more well thought-out than this one.

 

[monovillage]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

Welcome to the internet, enjoy your stay!

Try looking at what CU sea level charts show, which are hardly a hotbed of skeptics.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
you can even use their nifty Interactive Sea Level Time Series Wizard
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-series-wizard

Here's a peer reviewed paper that disagrees with Kemp et al. and their paper.

http://www.mindtickler.com/soapbox/2005JC003229.pdf PDF

Welcome to the internet.

 

[halik]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html


What now climate changers? Doctor more data to counter?

OMG one study supports your premade view! That means none of it can possibly be true, because Glenn Beck told me it's a mulsim lefti nazi conspiracy.

Scientific Method:

Gather data -> create model -> make predictions -> check with out of sample data

Retard Methid:
No global warming -> google for inconclusive study -> conclude liberal conspiracy.

 

[shira]

More responses from the scientific community to this study:

“This is a very bad paper and is demonstrably wrong,” said Richard Somerville, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. “It is getting a lot of attention only because of noise in the blogosphere.”

Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what’s being written about Spencer’s study by nonscientists “has no basis in reality.”

Judith Curry (Climatologist and chair of of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology):

"Also, it needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear.

The paper makes a useful contribution, but in the end they make the same error in interpretation that they accuse others of making. In my opinion it is not correct to infer from their analysis that global temperature variations were largely radiatively forced.

The complexity of the interaction between natural internal variability, surface temperature, clouds and radiative forcing are not adequately sorted out in terms of causal mechanisms to justify such a conclusion, in my opinion."

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth (Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research) and John T. Fasullo (Project Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research):

The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.


[read analysis at link, above]

The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).

But, gee, if climate-change deniers find a paper that they THINK - however misguidedly - blows a hole in MMCC, then that paper must be the gold standard and all other climate research - and all other climatologists - must be BS.

 

[Phokus]

I'm assuming you burn absolutely no fossil-fuels. Or purchase goods that were shipped via truck or train.

The mail you receive is delivered by the pony express. You don't use any sort of plastic either. When you travel, I am almost certain you are on a bicycle.

We are all reliant on fossil fuel. I am 100% on board with finding an alternative fuel to get us off of the OPEC teat.

However, it makes me laugh when a liberal acts like somehow Republicans are causing "climate change."

I disagree with 95% of your posts, but they are usually more well thought-out than this one.

That's not what i meant dummy. Yes, i know we all use fossil fuels and that contributes to climate change, but it's the tea party/Republicans who actively RESIST legislation that would curb it's use/effects.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm alarmingly alarmed by the alarmist nature of this alarming story. Did I say alarm???

BTW - I note the lack of percentage difference in the expected difference in heat release vs predicted. That is an alrmingly gaping hole in article.

This is the kind of story that is written just to give right wing loudmouth broadcasters talking points. That's how the VRWC works.

 

[PokerGuy]

But climate-change deniers aren't really interested in science. For them, science is useful only if it can be used as propaganda to further their self-interested objectives. Deniers are driven by their ideology and their pre-ordained conclusions, not by the objective pursuit of knowledge.

You could replace "deniers" with "believers" and make the exact same statement. The zealots will believe global warming ...errr...no, we meant climate change and will make the science fit their goals. Not to mention that the whole global warming scam is basically a political movement now that has nothing to do with actual science.